(no subject)

[oyceter]

So I've calmed down a little and actually read through the entire thing. And wow. Am trying very hard not to get worked up again. The gender essentialist stuff in and of itself would piss me off, not even considering that he's using it as a piece of "proof" to further his very fallacious chain of reasoning.

And as hesychasm so kindly pointed out, yonmei and cesperanza have written rebuttals, which is good, because so far they are much more coherent than me.

ETA: I take it back. I am ranting anyway. Because the gender essentialist crap really pisses me off and his whole, oh gay people do have the right to marriage! It's like back in the days of non-interracial marriage -- you do have the right to marriage! Of course, with the small footnote that it is limited to a certain pool of people who look like you! I'm sorry. Yonmei goes into the whole marriage without sex thing but I haven't read far enough to see if she (he? I tend to assume LJ people are female, ironic for my gender essentialist argument) points out that his argument itself is very scarily like the Jim Crow laws. Blacks have the right to sit on buses -- just in the back. Blacks of course have the right to go to school! Just these certain ones though. Because of course the whole separate but equal thing was totally fair.

And I am pissed off beyond the telling at the gender essentialism. Wait, only a father can provide moral groundwork? WTF?! Because we poor women are too weak and coddle the children too much, and of course, we are all freaking the same because we have two X chromosomes? Nothing about cultural influence there, or maybe that the centuries confining women to the home space may have caused this, as opposed to genes. Oh no, a woman, any woman, no matter what, will without fail be coddling and cannot possibly *gasp* reprimand her child to provide a moral framework. Uhh, I'm sorry.... surely it wasn't my mother who taught me lying was bad?

I'm sorry. That's honestly the stupidest thing I've read for a very long time. And I'm not being good and logical about it like I'm sure other LJ people are, but oh well.

Ugh. To think I went to his signing.

Comments

[jennyo.livejournal.com]

Yonmei's dissection will make you very happy; this whole thing has made me...well, I personally want to tell him, "If you are basically going to state Mormon doctrine as fact -- and obviously, you based this all on the Proclamation on the Family, which you know in your heart is a filthy lie -- you need to say up front that you're basing your entire argument on the fact that your church has said that God has said that gender is eternal and essential, heterosexual nuclear families are eternal and essential, and mumble mumble the polygamy stuff because of the Proclamation on the Family."

OSC not only knows what he did, he's lying a second time for the Lord by refusing to admit that everything he did was based on the assumption that the LDS Proclamation on the Family has more legal and moral weight than the historical and logical evidence, which is intellectual dishonest and sloppy, given that the Mormons will eventually give in the way they did in 1978 when the government told 'em to stop being overtly racist or lose their tax-exempt status. So he's being a coward and a propagandist.

As a former Mormon, I have to mutter, "fucking lying fuckheads" because wow, the things one will do to maintain a large financial empire that won't disclose financial records to the membership, let alone anyone else and spends less than 1% of its budget on the needy.

[oyceter]

Thanks. Had no idea if all that stuff about the holiness of the nuclear family and the gender essentialist whatnot was jusonalnion stated as fact or something else.

But just... argh! The entire argument is based on premises I find incredibly offensive that he takes for a pure fact!

[ebonbird.livejournal.com]

I dismiss Card's personal views. I'll read his stories, but I find the less I know about his opinions, the happier I am.

[dmsherwood53.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know if you can do this with such a moralist writer as Card

[ebonbird.livejournal.com]

:)

Why do you think I can't do this?

[dmsherwood53.livejournal.com]

Because too many of his storys are structured around a Moral. Take that away & you've basically got a mess on your hands.

When metaphors go to far for a modern girl's taste

[ebonbird.livejournal.com]

Gender essentialist?

That gender is immutable and relates to a physical reality. Or at least, is immutable?

Bah. And all the times God is described in the bible as being in labor over his people, as in, I squatted in the pains of my labor and gave you birth?

Or some such.

Anyway... OSC has a set of beliefs that make sense to him and, when he puts them in his text, make sense... in that context. But really, I have a tendency to grit my teeth and go, "ook. You're writing like a LeHaye again."

I've read many books on family, therapy, and family dynamics by Christians, like Tim & Beverly Lehaye, the Smalls, and the Minirth-Meier clinics. There's a lot of good stuff in there. And there's a lot of stuff that's kind of crap.

(note my Rupauls icon)

Re: When metaphors go to far for a modern girl's taste

[oyceter]

Nyargh. The entire idea that gender means that some aspects of your personality or your role in society are fixed not culturally, but biologically pisses me off incredibly. Because of course gender and gender roles have been exactly the same throughout the entire course of human history, just like definitions of marriage and family /sarcasm.

Not even going to go into the incredible arrogance and cultural imperialism that goes into making a statement like that.

And on a happier note: so that's who's in your icon! I've been wondering.

[rahael.livejournal.com]

Ah yes! The Essentialism thing never fails to get my goat!

It always makes me go "grrr" and behave in an unladylike way. So no difference there then!

Nice rant. (Haven't read the article in case I see red too) I actually haven't read any fiction by Card. Should I? I see his name mentioned all the time.

Up until moments ago I would have said yes

[ann1962]

Card's view of family in his novels (and I have read most all of them) have been of sharing and dealing with problems in creative and sensitive ways. He has an uncanny knack of seeing the vulnerability of children and condemning those that cannot protect such. His view of women, I thought, was one of describing strong commanding woman. I have loved his work. His faith, while apparently strong, has never been intrusive on his work (except one novel that had Mormon characters, but the Mormonism was just a backdrop).

This article seems out of place with what I know of his writings. Apparently, he holds a different view from that which his novels spring. Too bad, as the "liberal cabal" that these conservatives "see" all around them, is only present because they can only see what they know of themselves. Their world view is one of suspicion and that is what they see everywhere.

Re: Up until moments ago I would have said yes

[rahael.livejournal.com]

Well ever since I heard that Tim Minear is going to be writing the screenplay to one of his books (is that correct?) I've been thinking I should give it a go. Both you and Ann seem to have enjoyed the work without liking the author, so......and it's Tim Minear, after all!

I am not sure it is

[ann1962]

I hadn't heard that news so I tried to verify and found this
"SF/Fantasy: Classic Heinlein book becoming screenplay
Angel and Wonderfalls producer Tim Minear has been tapped to write the screenplay of Robert Heinlein's classic SF novel, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, which told the story of a rebellion on the moon in 2067." at http://saga.jointhesaga.com/mt/archives/cat_online_escapes_sffantasy_news.html

I doubt he would be doing both but wouldn't that be lucky for us. Nothing else on this site about Card's movie Ender's Game which has been bounced around for several years but has apparently found a home. From Card's site: "Movie Update - February 10, 2004
X-Men 2 Writers Signed for the Ender Screenplay Variety Magazine announced on 10 February that Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty, the writing team that created the X-Men 2 screenplay, have been hired by Warner Brothers to write the second draft of the Ender's Game screenplay. Harris and Dougherty have already been in contact with Orson Scott Card, the author of both Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow, both of which have been optioned by Warner Brothers as the basis for the Ender's Game movie. Card wrote the first draft of the screenplay based on both books.

I guess we will see.

Re: I am not sure it is

[oyceter]

Sigh... I mostly really, really don't want to see Ender's Game the movie. I adored the book, and from what OSC says, they're cutting out all the things I loved about the book (the interiority, Ender's psychological battles and his pain). Plus, I never really liked Ender's Shadow -- it feels so much like a retcon on OSC's part, almost as though he resents being the author of Ender's Game because that's still the book everyone talks about. Or I project too much ;).

You're right and I'm wrong!!

[rahael.livejournal.com]

I knew there was a reason I was hesitating. Right it's Heinlein. Okay. I may try Card, but I'm not reading Heinlein even if Minear is writing the script!!

I was clearly mixingt these two writers in my mind!

Re: Up until moments ago I would have said yes

[oyceter]

Tim Minear? Really? It must be Ender's Game if he is.... that's the only one I know that's being turned into a movie (although it's taking forever).

Re: Up until moments ago I would have said yes

[oyceter]

I think so as well, and I particularly liked the way he made sure to have strong women in his books. Which is why this is so annoying...

[oyceter]

Ugh, I hate the essentialist thing, just like I hate the "throughout the course of human history" proclamations, because really, half the time the people mean "throughout the last century in the specific cultural area I live in."

Card writes pretty good fiction, imho. I read his Ender's Game in sixth grade and I still love it passionately -- it's one of the books that I recommend to everyone. He's generally very smart and very feminist (in his fiction, heh).

Glad to hear you thought him a feminist too.

[ann1962]

After reading this article, I really was not trusting my interpretation of Card. The man as writer and as man. How the two differ.

Re: Glad to hear you thought him a feminist too.

[oyceter]

Exactly! Will try hard in my head not to think of Card the man when I read his books...

[mogens.livejournal.com]

What a piece of shit article. The entire thing is full of statements that make absolutely no sense. Case in point:

Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

While women, of course, are primarily interested in men as a meal ticket and sperm donor, and are happiest when they've secured their claim to a man by having his child. ::rolls eyes:: People who take a couple of ideas from evolutionary (and political) theory and use them to argue that men and women act in a predictable, unchanging, biologically destined manner (and that that is the best way to view them) really, really annoy me. It's reductive, not to mention utterly ridiculous.

And then, of course, there is his constant assertion of "facts" that he doesn't back up with any hard evidence.
Why? Because he's talking out of his ass!

Ok, rant over. *g*

[oyceter]

I know! Because all males follow only the reproductive imperative and can't think for themselves.

Nyargh.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Well, not being American *g* I didn't think of directly cross-referencing to the Jim Crow laws. But I did note that Card's claim that giving a minority equal access is really not the same thing as total destruction - here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/237634.html).

[oyceter]

*nods* I see!

I actually couldn't make it all the way through your very wonderful deconstruction because Card pissed me off so much! I'd be in the middle of one of your arguments and nodding and cheering, and then you'd quote Card, and my blood pressure rose, saw red, and sometimes just couldn't take anymore.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I understand. :-) I only managed to read OSC through from start to finish without having an apopletic fit because I was getting to pull apart his arguments and point out where he'd lied, where he'd prevaricated, and where he was just being hateful. If my arguments appeared incoherent, that's because I wasn't really reading ahead much: I was soothing myself as I read by shooting holes in his arguments.

[oyceter]

Totally understand! I had to skim through at least half of his entire article because reading it too closely basically made me want to bash my head into a wall or throw something.

On Gender Essentialism

[dmsherwood53.livejournal.com]

Would like to point out the differance between Card's work and his articles. In his books quite a lot of his female's are self-directed. They hardly ever question the male running of the world but they aren't soft cuddly sorts

Re: On Gender Essentialism

[oyceter]

Yeah, that's almost why his personal views are so frustrating! I enjoy his books because I like the views that (I think) they espouse.